Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

I have received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ for parking behind my property of over 20 years. I was aware of the site being managed by a parking company but failed to take my permit out of the glovebox after working a night shift. The operator does have permission to operate on the land by my Housing Association.

I received a PCN to registered keeper 9 days from alleged contravention. I admitted I was the driver but denied any contravention ever occurred for the following reasons:

• The Contravention did not occur. In Jan, my vehicle: a '*************' was not parked at the location as stated by the parking operator. My vehicle was in fact parked behind my home of over 23 years: "Address hidden." The two addresses are completely different. They are separate carparks, with a six-foot fence dividing them (no through road), they are on separate roads wit separate post codes. Therefore, the PCN should be void, as I was not parked in the location as stated on the PCN. To get to one car park to another you would have to negotiate two separate roads, some 158 feet apart.

The land owner has requested that the PCN be cancelled, the parking company are ignoring this.

• The parking company are a limited company whom have obligations such as informing ‘Companies House’ if they change their address to which their company is registered. The parking company moved out of their address in January 2018. Yet, failed to inform companies House of the change when they updated their accounts in February 2018/2019. even signed two conformation statement. The Parking company are operating, issuing tickets from an address in which they no longer occupy which is illegal. The old address is even on the PCN.

I have spoken to local residents and photographic evidence that they no longer occupy the address to which their company is registered to.

• The signs displayed did not conform to current regulations. The sign displayed at the front of the scheme was their old company’s sign with a piece of paper stuck over old details. The size of the text was too small, not illuminated and displayed a company registration number which was not tiered to a current address of which the company occupy.

• The land owner (housing association), Have signs larger in size and depicting larger text which have been displayed before I moved in in 1995. The main sign at the entrance to our scheme states (This carpark is for residents and visitors only), I had parked within the parameters of this sign as I am a resident. In order for CMS's signs to become enforceable, This older sign sign should have been removed.

• I had parked within the confines of my primary contract (tenancy agreement- issued Dec 1995). The idea behind primacy is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. I have unfettered rights to park in the carpark: "Address hidden" with no mention of permit or parking system. This cannot be changed or altered in anyway by the parking company, as in the case of "Link Parking v Mrs P: case No C7GF50J7."

a) Link Parking V Mrs P - it was found that the Parking company could not override the tenants right to park requiring a permit.

b) In Joseph V Homegaurd 2016, case no: B9GF09AR. It was established "Parking Eye v Bevis 2015 (UKSC67), Does not apply to residential parking. therefore, brings the penalty doctrine back into play.

I have evidence that the sign at the entrance to the scheme does not comply to current regulations. Its a sign with the parking companies details stuck on with paper. My last recorded evidence was 12 March. Although the sign was changed on around the
20th March 2019

The parking company gave evidence to the IAS in the way of an 'image' of a sign and a sign in 'a van'. This was on the 08th March, neither signs were displayed at the scheme at the time of the alleged contravention. The main sign was changed around the 20th March to the sign which they falsely stated to the IAS was displayed at the time of the alleged contravention.

The IAS/ IPC have ignored the fact that the evidence was false and insufficient, that the Company's registered address is no longer in use (which has to be displayed on the PCN)

Is this LBA ok? I have never had to do this before and appreciate all help and guidance:

My complaint

1) On the 25th January 2019, at ‘*************’ You placed a PCN on my vehicle by lifting the Window Wiper. You never had my permission to touch my vehicle. Therefore, you trespassed on my property.
2) I had parked within the confines of my Primary Contract, my Tenancy Agreement, dated 04th December 1995. This gives me unfettered rights to park in my carpark without the need for a ‘Permit to park’ scheme. This cannot be changed by the operator, nor my Landlord without my permission of which I have never given. CMS have tried to enter me into a contract of which I have not agreed to.
3) The signs which was displayed on the 25th January were not compliant with current regulations. Therefore, you had no legal right to manage/ enforce parking conditions at our scheme.
4) On the 30th January 2019, you issued me with a Parking charge Notice (invoice) which was invalid as the information it contained was not upto date, it contained an address in which you have not owned/ Occupied since 23rd January 2018. Therefore, any invoice issued by CMS from ‘55 Leonards Road West, Lytham, St Annes, Lancashire, FY8 2PF’ post 23rd January 2018 are invalid.
5) On the 08th March 2018, you supplied evidence to the ‘Independent Appeals service’ of what Signs were displayed at our scheme. You gave false evidence, as the sign which you stated was displayed on the 25th January was not displayed until the 20th March, some 12 days after you gave evidence and 54 days after the alleged contravention. My last evidence of old sign is time stamped and dated 12th March 2019.
6) On the 12 April you instructed a Debt Collector, ZZPS, to enforce a Debt which was not owed. ZZPS put a further £60 onto the alleged £100 Parking Charge, bringing the total to £160.
7) On the 23rd April I received a ‘Final Response’ Letter from ZZPS stating that the next course of action would be to instruct a Solicitors to recover the alleged debt. I was threatened with Court Costs, Solicitors Fees along with Statutory Interests.
8) On the 10th May, after several complaints to the IPC the PCN was cancelled. I believe this was only because I was not happy with their response and requested for permission to disclose information and enquired how to escalate my complaint.

Summery

It is without Prejudice:

I put it to you that not only did you give false evidence against me regarding signage, that CMS had no legal right to manage or enforce our scheme sine 24th January 2018. CMS are operating breaching sections 86 and sections 87 of the Companies Act 2006. Therefore, CMS is operating illegally by operating, issuing PCN’s from an address of which they no longer Own/ Occupy.

Legality of CMS’s Registered Address: -

CMS have broken the following regulation as set in ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 86: -

A company's registered office-

A. company must at all times have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed.

CMS have issued an Invoice from an address they no longer occupy breaking the following regulation as set in the ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 87: -

Change of address of registered office-

(1) A company may change the address of its registered office by giving notice to the registrar.

(2) The change takes effect upon the notice being registered by the registrar, but until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is registered a person may validly serve any document on the company at the address previously registered.

(3) For the purposes of any duty of a company—

(a) to keep available for inspection at its registered office any register, index or other document, or
(b) to mention the address of its registered office in any document, (this includes invoices)

If you dispute my claim, I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

In this regard I would invite you to put forward any proposals.

I look forward to hearing from you within the next 28 Days. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this timeframe, then I anticipate that a legal claim will be commenced forthwith.

Do not use the expression "without prejudice" unless you really understand the consequences, and then still don't use it.

3) The signs which was displayed on the 25th January were not compliant with current regulations.

The parking industry is unregulated. Check the IPC CoP and see if they have breached that. If they have then they (may) have breached their KADOE agreement with the DVLA in order to get your personal details. This should then constitute a DPA/GDPR breach.

Have you heard back from the DVLA yet?

In addition, the signs (probably) cannot form a contract with a motorist and would be a separate breach of the KADOE contract. Again check what the CoP says.

If you have pics of the signs before the date of the alleged event, post them here for the regulars to have a look at.

I am no expert, but that looks like you are making a complaint or telling a story. You have also shown the scammers much of your evidence, but I don't think that goes in the LBA.
I have no idea what format a LBA should take, but see if you can find a proforma somewhere, possibly on the legalbeagles website.

I echo Fruitcake’s comment. ‘Without Prejudice’ means that anything you have written cannot be shown to the court.

“

In this regard I would invite you to put forward any proposals.

”

On the basis of your ‘Without Prejudice’ warning, in their shoes, my proposal would be quite simple - FRO.

What kind of ‘proposals’ are you looking for?

I’m not a legally trained expert in this stuff, but to me your reasons for bringing this seem a bit jumbled. Maybe you should segment each reason and give details under each.

“

CMS are operating breaching sections 86 and sections 87 of the Companies Act 2006. Therefore, CMS is operating illegally by operating, issuing PCN’s from an address of which they no longer Own/ Occupy.

”

Are you sufficiently knowledgeable about this area of law to argue it in court?

If, in your LBA you are suggesting that you are seeking financial recompense, have you looked at the requirements of the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims (PaP) which might help you shape the LBA and ensure you miss nothing out?

Is this LBA ok? I have never had to do this before and appreciate all help and guidance:

My complaint

1) On the 25th January 2019, at ‘*************’ You placed a PCN on my vehicle by lifting the Windowwindscreen wiper. You never had my permission to touch my vehicle. Therefore, you trespassed on my property.
2) I had parked within the confines of my Primary Contract, my Tenancy Agreement, dated 04th December 1995. This gives me unfettered rights to park in my carpark without the need for a ‘Permit to park’ scheme. This cannot be changed by the operator, nor my Landlord without my permission of which I have never given. CMS have tried to enter me into a contract ofto which I have not agreed to.
3) The signs which waswere displayed on the 25th January were not compliant with current regulations. Therefore, you had no legal right to manage/enforce parking conditions at our scheme.
4) On the 30th January 2019, you issued me with a Parking charge Notice (invoice) which was invalid as the information it contained was not up-to-date, it contained an address in which you have not owned/occupied since 23rd January 2018. Therefore, any invoice issued by CMS from ‘55 Leonards Road West, Lytham, St Annes, Lancashire, FY8 2PF’ post 23rd January 2018 areis invalid.
5) On the 08th March 2018, you supplied evidence to the ‘Independent Appeals service’ of whatwhich signs were displayed at our scheme. You gave false evidence, as the sign which you stated was displayed on the 25th January was not displayed until the 20th March, some 12 days after you gave evidence and 54 days after the alleged contravention. My last evidence of the old sign is time stamped and dated 12th March 2019.
6) On the 12 April you instructed a Debt Collector, ZZPS, to enforce a Debt which was not owed. ZZPS put a further £60 onto the alleged £100 Parking Charge, bringing the total to £160.
7) On the 23rd April I received a ‘Final Response’ Letter from ZZPS stating that the next course of action would be to instruct a Solicitors to recover the alleged debt. I was threatened with Court Costs and Solicitors Fees along with Statutory Interests.
8) On the 10th May, after several complaints to the IPC the PCN was cancelled. I believe this was only because I was not happy with their response and requested for permission to disclose information and enquired how to escalate my complaint.

SummerySummary

It is without Prejudice:

I put it to you that not only did you give false evidence against me regarding signage, that CMS had no legal right to manage or enforce our scheme sinesince 24th January 2018. CMS are operating breaching sections 86 and sections 87 of the Companies Act 2006. Therefore, CMS is operating illegally by operating, issuing PCN’s from an address of which they no longer Own/Occupy.

Legality of CMS’s Registered Address: -

CMS have broken the following regulation as set in ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 86: -

A company's registered office-

A. company must at all times have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed.

CMS have issued an Invoice from an address they no longer occupy breaking the following regulation as set in the ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 87: -

Change of address of registered office-

(1) A company may change the address of its registered office by giving notice to the registrar.

(2) The change takes effect upon the notice being registered by the registrar, but until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is registered a person may validly serve any document on the company at the address previously registered.

(3) For the purposes of any duty of a company—

(a) to keep available for inspection at its registered office any register, index or other document, or
(b) to mention the address of its registered office in any document, (this includes invoices)

If you dispute my claim, I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

In this regard I would invite you to put forward any proposals.

I look forward to hearing from you within the next 28 Days. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this timeframe, then I anticipate that a legal claim will be commenced forthwith.

This is the signs which were displayed unto the 12th March 2019. The larger sign, 'Private Road Carparking for residents and Visitors only' has been there since before I moved in (December 1995). I had parked within the parameters of this sign. In order for CMS's sign to become enforceable, then this one should have been removed, as it is the older, larger and more clearer sign.

This is a close up of CMS's sign, notice that there is a piece of paper stuck over their old company's details, the text is small and not clear. It is also displaying a company number which is not tied to a current registered address. last photo evidence taken 12 March 2019

This is a new sign which appeared on the 20th march, some 12 days after CMS gave evidence to the IAS to say it was displayed in January 2019.

The DVLA stated that its down to the IPC and not them... The IPC are not investigating any breaches to its CODE.

The sign in the first image shows the BPA roundel. You should complain to the DVLA that an IPC member is purporting to be a member of a different ATA in breach of their CoP and thus a further breach of their KADOE agreement. Include a copy of that image ensuring it carries the metadata with the date and time the photo' was taken and a copy of the PCN that post dates the image.

I believe 0844 numbers are classed as premium rate numbers which are now prohibited. Only a minor thing but it is all ammo for your LBA.

I am not sure what should be in a LBA, this is why I have added a brief account. I am aware that a 'PCN' is an 'Invoice'. Limited companies have several responsibilities as set in the Companies Act 2006, CMS have not met theirs. My aim is to prove that CMS have been operating illegally since January 2018. My PCN has been cancelled, I'm hoping to help others.

I am writing in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action conduct with regards to the following matters which has arisen between us.

On the 25th January 2019 at 14:56, you alleged I had breached a contract by parking behind my home of 23 years. This triggered you to issue a ‘PCN’ which was issued on the 30th January 2019.

My complaint

1) On the 25th January 2019, at ‘**********’ You placed a PCN on my vehicle for an alleged breach of contract.
You lifted the Windscreen Wiper. You never had my permission to touch my vehicle. Therefore, you trespassed on my property.

2) I had parked within the confines of my Primary Contract, my Tenancy Agreement, dated 04th December 1995. This gives me unfettered rights to park in my carpark without the need for a ‘Permit to park’ scheme.
This cannot be changed by the operator, nor my Landlord without my permission of which I have never given. CMS have tried to enter me into a contract to which I have not agreed.

3) The signs which were displayed on the 25th January were not compliant with current regulations.
Therefore, you had no legal right to manage/ enforce parking conditions at our scheme.

4) On the 30th January 2019, you issued me with a Parking charge Notice (invoice) which was invalid as the information it contained was not up-to-date. The PCN contained an address which you have not owned/ Occupied since 23rd January 2018.
Therefore, any invoice issued by CMS from ‘55 Leonards Road West, Lytham, St Annes, Lancashire, FY8 2PF’ post 23rd January 2018 is invalid.

5) On the 08th March 2018, you supplied evidence to the ‘Independent Appeals service’ of which signs were displayed at our scheme.
You gave false evidence, as the sign which you stated was displayed on the 25th January was not displayed until the 20th March, some 12 days after you gave evidence and 54 days after the alleged contravention. My last photographic image of the old sign carries the metadata, with the date/ time that the photo was taken - 12th March 2019 at 08:34.

6) On the 12 April you instructed a Debt Collector, ZZPS, to enforce a Debt which was not owed. ZZPS put a further £60 onto the alleged £100 Parking Charge, bringing the total to £160.
I had already submitted my valid appeal, which I believe this was not taken seriously. The debt was increasing causing me distress.

7) On the 23rd April I received a ‘Final Response’ Letter from ZZPS stating that the next course of action would be to instruct a Solicitor to recover the alleged debt.
I was threatened with Court Costs and Solicitors Fees along with Statutory Interest. This also was causing me distress

8) On the 10th May, after several complaints to the IPC the PCN was cancelled.
I believe this was only because I was not happy with their response and requested for permission to disclose information and enquired how to escalate my complaint.

Summary

CMS gave false evidence against to the IAS, regarding signage. I believe this was to ensure the legitimacy of your PCN due to CMS’s actual signs were not complying with current regulations.

CMS is operating illegally by issuing PCN’s from an address of which they no longer Own/ Occupy. This breaches sections 86 and sections 87 of the Companies Act 2006. Therefore, any PCN issued from this address since 23rd January 2018, are not valid and motorists should be informed and refunded (if paid.) Please see below for details of the Companies Act 2006.

The entrance sign shows the BPA roundel. CMS as an IPC member is purporting to be a member of a different ATA in breach of their CoP and thus a further breach of their KADOE.

CMS’s signs contain a contact number beginning with 0844… I believe 0844 numbers are classed as premium rate numbers which are now prohibited.

Legality of CMS’s Registered Address: -

CMS have broken the following regulation as set in ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 86: -

A company's registered office-

A. company must at all times have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed.

CMS have issued an Invoice from an address they no longer occupy breaking the following regulation as set in the ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 87: -

Change of address of registered office-

(1) A company may change the address of its registered office by giving notice to the registrar.

(2) The change takes effect upon the notice being registered by the registrar, but until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is registered a person may validly serve any document on the company at the address previously registered.

(3) For the purposes of any duty of a company—

(a) to keep available for inspection at its registered office any register, index or other document, or
(b) to mention the address of its registered office in any document, (this includes invoices)

If you dispute my claim, then could you please respond within 28 days with full details. I look forward to hearing from you. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this timeframe, then I anticipate that a legal claim will be commenced forthwith.

However, my main aim is to prove that this company has been operating illegally since 2018. Therefore, any PCN from that date which has been paid should be refunded to the motorist. In mot sure if the civil courts has the power to grant such a request.

I also wish to show the whole process up, as I have been denied a fair right of appeal by both the operator and the IAS/IPC. The fact they submitted/ accepted false evidence proves this.

I would like this company removed from our scheme, which the land owner is reluctant to do.

This company should have its membership to the ATA removed for its conduct.

This is the second company to be allowed to manage our scheme. The first was MPC, whom was ousted as a 'cowboy' company by the BBC. I received death threats for fighting their £385 clamping/ towing fee.

Both MPC and CMS operate in the same way... Both operating without a current, active ;registered address'.

Companies House, Insolvency, Action Fraud DVLA and Trading standards dont want to know. This leaves me no other alternative Than the Courts.

CAB and Trading Standards wont touch these Parking Operators... Said its down to Action Fraud.
Action Fraud said its nothing to do with them
Companies House has no investigative powers, said its down to Insolvency.
Insolvency said its nothing to do with them
DVLA said its down the the IPC
The IPC said there is no complaint.

This is the second company to be allowed to manage our scheme. The first was MPC, whom was ousted as a 'cowboy' company by the BBC. I received death threats for fighting their £385 clamping/ towing fee.

Both MPC and CMS operate in the same way... Both operating without a current, active ;registered address'.

Seems like a land owner who is ignorant, but maybe he gets a share of the action. Does he not understand that he is responsible for his agent and could end up in court.himself

The IPC, the great scam set up by Gladstones should be stripped of their ATA status ...... government could do this

Sir Greg Knight MP introduced a new CoP which is now law but still being written.
I am certain that he will realise that he will get egg on his face if it all goes wrong, so write to him about the scam IPC and your situation

I have informed my landlord (the land owner) of the fact that I may not be able to take CMS to court, due to them not having a 'registered address' in which I can serve legal documents too. I have even informed them that if I were to obtain a Judgment then it maybe unenforceable due to LTD companies often have no assets in their name. After several months of reminding them that I had to put court documents on their desk to recover the £385 which MPC took from me to recover my friends vehicle. Due to I could not take MPC to court due to they had no registered address. My landlord is happy to let them continue to operate... Even after they fabricated evidence against me.

The IPC is on my list as the IAS have accepted false evidence and it was only after I requested permission to disclose information to my local MP, DVLA, Landlord ect that they decided to look into my complaint... half heartedly I might add.

In an LBA letter, so you have to put in how much you are claiming for? giving the reasons why?

LBA (draft): -

I am writing this letter before claim in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action conduct with regards to the following matters which has arisen between us.

On the 25th January 2019 at 14:56, you alleged I had breached a contract by parking behind my home of 23 years. This triggered you to issue a ‘PCN’ which was issued on the 30th January 2019.

Reasons for Complaint

1) Data Protection Act (DPA) breach by CMS. CMS had no legal right to obtain my personal data from the DVLA.

1.1 CMS are operating from and address in which they no longer own/Occupied since 23rd January 2018.

1.2 CMS’s signs were not upto current regulations and are unenforceable by law. Therefore, CMS has no legal right to manage, enforcing parking restrictions at our scheme. This breaches the IAS/IPC’s Code of Practice (CoP).

1.3 The entrance sign, which was displayed on the 25th January 2019, shows the BPA roundel. CMS as an IPC member is purporting to be a member of a different ATA in breach of the DVLA’s CoP and thus a further breach of their KADOE. Therefore, you had no rights to obtain my personal data

Any PCN issued at our scheme since, November 2013 (approximately) is invalid. CMS (UK) left the BPA around November 2013 and Joined the IPC 03 February 2014 as CMS LTD.

2 On the 25th January 2019, at ‘***********’ You placed a PCN on my vehicle for an alleged breach of contract.

2.1 A CMS operative lifted the Windscreen Wiper. You never had my permission to touch my vehicle. Therefore, you trespassed on my property.

2.2 CMS alleged I had parked at “********************************”
CMS issued the PCN to the wrong Carpark. There are two separate carparks, separated by a six-foot fence on different roads and in different Post Codes.

3 I had parked within the confines of my Primary Contract, my Tenancy Agreement, dated 04th December 1995. This gives me unfettered rights to park in my carpark without the need for a ‘Permit to park’ scheme.

3.1 This cannot be changed by the operator, nor my Landlord without my permission of which I have never given. CMS have tried to override my contract with my landlord, to enter me into a contract to which I have not agreed.

4 On the 30th January 2019, you issued me with a Parking charge Notice (invoice). The PCN was invalid as the information it contained was not up-to-date.

4.1 The PCN (invoice) was issued from an address which you have not owned/ occupy. Any PCN (invoice) issued by CMS from ‘55 Leonards Road West, Lytham, St Annes, Lancashire, FY8 2PF’ post 23rd January 2018 is invalid.

An invoice issued by a limited company must contain certain information: including the company’s registration number the company’s address. This is set out in the ‘Companies Act 2006’, of which CMS are in breach of. Therefore. CMS, as a Limited Company, are operating illegally.

4 On the 08th March 2018, you supplied evidence to the ‘Independent Appeals service’ of which signs were displayed at our scheme.

4.2 CMS gave false evidence to the IAS, as the sign which you stated was displayed on the 25th January 2019.

The sign which CMS gave as evidence to the IAS on the 08th March 2019, was not in fact displayed until the 20th March, some 12 days after you gave evidence and 54 days after the alleged contravention.

My last photographic image of the old sign carries the metadata, with the date/ time that the photo was taken - 12th March 2019 at 08:34.

This also breaches the IAS/IPC’s CoP.
5 On the 12 April you instructed a Debt Collector, ZZPS, to enforce a Debt which was not owed. ZZPS put a further £60 onto the alleged £100 Parking Charge, bringing the total to £160.

5.1 I had already submitted my valid appeal, which I believe this was not taken seriously by CMS or the IPC. The debt was increasing causing me distress.

5.2 On the 23rd April I received a ‘Final Response’ Letter from ZZPS stating that the next course of action would be to instruct a Solicitor to recover the alleged debt.
I was threatened with Court Costs and Solicitors Fees along with Statutory Interest. This also was causing me further distress

6 On the 10th May, after several complaints to the IPC the PCN was cancelled.

6.1 I believe this was only because I was not happy with their response and requested for permission to disclose information to the DVLA, my local MP, Landowner and legal team (when appointed). I also enquired how to escalate my complaint.

I had in made numerous complaints to the IPC regarding your conduct, all of which not taken seriously.

Summary

CMS gave false evidence against to the IAS, regarding signage. I believe this was to ensure the legitimacy of your PCN due to CMS’s actual signs were not complying with current regulations.

CMS is operating illegally by issuing PCN’s from an address of which they no longer Own/ Occupy. This breaches sections 86 and sections 87 of the Companies Act 2006. Therefore, any PCN issued from this address since 23rd January 2018, are not valid and motorists should be informed and refunded (if paid.) Please see below for details of the Companies Act 2006.

The entrance sign shows the BPA roundel. CMS as an IPC member is purporting to be a member of a different ATA in breach of the DVLA’s CoP and thus a further breach of their KADOE.

Therefore, any PCN issued at our scheme is ‘Invalid’ due to CMS (UK) left the BPA around November 2013 and Joined the IPC 03 February 2014 as CMS LTD. The signs should have been updated to reflect the change in ATA, they were not updated!

CMS’s signs contain a contact number beginning with 0844… I believe 0844 numbers are classed as premium rate numbers which are now prohibited.

Legality of CMS’s Registered Address: -

CMS have broken the following regulation as set in ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

2006 c. 46. Part 6, General, Section 86: -

A company's registered office-
A. company must at all times have a registered office to which all communications and notices may be addressed.

CMS have issued an Invoice from an address they no longer occupy breaking the following regulation as set in the ‘Companies Act 2006.’ Which states: -

(1) A company may change the address of its registered office by giving notice to the registrar.

(2) The change takes effect upon the notice being registered by the registrar, but until the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which it is registered a person may validly serve any document on the company at the address previously registered.

(3) For the purposes of any duty of a company—

(a) to keep available for inspection at its registered office any register, index or other document, or
(b) to mention the address of its registered office in any document, (this includes invoices)

If you dispute my claim, then could you please respond within 28 days with full details. I look forward to hearing from you. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this timeframe, then I anticipate that a legal claim will be commenced forthwith.

I refer you to the Practice Direction on pre-action conduct under the Civil Procedure Rules, and in particular to paragraphs 13-16 which set out the sanctions the court may impose if you fail to comply with the ‘Practice Direction.’

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.